Zum internationalen Tag der Pressefreiheit: aktuelle EGMR-Rechtsprechung

Zum heutigen Welttag der Pressefreiheit wieder einmal ein Blick auf die aktuelle Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zum Artikel 10 EMRK: Der April hat eine ganze Reihe von Art 10-Entscheidungen gebracht, davon allein fünf wegen der Berichterstattung in finnischen Medien zu einem Vorfall vom 4. Dezember 1996. Zitat zum Ausgangssachverhalt aus dem Urteil Flinkkilä ua / Finnland vom 6. April 2010:

"On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.'s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. Due to the incident, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case had lapsed as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal."

Strittig war, ob man über die Freundin des offenbar gar nicht so friedlichen Schlichters identifizierend (also unter Namensnennung) berichten durfte, wie dies in mehreren finnischen Medien erfolgt war. Die finnischen Gerichte waren der Auffassung, dass dies einen unzulässigen Eingriff in die Privatsphäre von Frau B. darstellte. Der EGMR folgte dieser Auffassung nicht:

"However, the Court notes that B. was involved in a public disturbance outside the family home of A., a senior public figure who was married and with whom she had developed a relationship. Criminal charges were preferred against both of them. They were later convicted as charged. The Court cannot but note that B., notwithstanding her status as a private person, can reasonably be taken to have entered the public domain. For the Court, the conviction of the applicants was backlit by these considerations and they cannot be discounted when assessing the proportionality of the interference with their Article 10 rights. ...

Moreover, it is to be noted that the disclosure of B.'s identity in the reporting had a direct bearing on matters of public interest, namely A.'s conduct and his ability to continue in his post as a high-level public servant. As B. had taken an active and willing part in the events of 4 December 1996, leading to A.'s conviction and dismissal, it is difficult to see how her involvement in the events was not a matter of public interest."

Zu den weiteren Fällen siehe die neue Seite in diesem Blog mit einer Übersicht über die Rechtsprechung des EGMR zum Art 10 EMRK.